As for accurately stating the Catholic explanation, it's more important to accurately state the reality. Arius, Nestorius, and Eutyches all claimed their doctrine was consistent with/a continuation of the doctrine passed down from the Apostles. For some reason their opponents were more interested in accurately stating how this was false than in accurately stating how Arius, Nestorius and Eutyches thought they were being faithful to the Faith delivered once for all.
I disagree. Before two parties can have a substantive and meaningful dialogue on ____, it is absolutely crucial that each understand the other's position and be able to state it accurately, in a way that the other party can say, "Yes, you have understood me."
The problem is, Father, the partisans of the Vatican are going to have to have that conversation amongst themselves before coming to us. And then there is the problem that the Vatican has mandated cognitive dissonance, as in Pastor Aeternus "This power of the Supreme Pontiff by no means detracts from that ordinary and immediate power of episcopal jurisdiction, by which bishops, who have succeeded to the place of the apostles by appointment of the Holy Spirit, tend and govern individually the particular flocks which have been assigned to them. On the contrary, this power of theirs is asserted, supported and defended by the Supreme and Universal Pastor." History has disproved that over and over, and yet you will never get a believer in Pastor Aeternus to admit that. "Jesuitry" is called that for a reason.
It is simply wrong to say that the Catholic Church believes that it makes up dogma as it goes along (always, of course, under the alleged inspiration of the Spirit). That is simply not what the Catholic Church teaches.
It is, however what the Vatican does.
It is dishonest to suggest otherwise.
Far less than the dishonesty of calling a spade a spade.
Who teaching whom? I've heard things taught by those entrusted by their "magisterium" to teach, teaching things that, one would hope, the "magisterium" would deny. Is it dishonest that Vatican is so teaching, when it is so teaching in its schools, its radio broadcasts, from the pulpit, etc...?
Case in point: they claim that their supreme pontiff teaches infallibly ex cathedra. Can they define when he is speaking "ex cathedra"? No. And their "magisterium" refuses to define it. Can they list the infallible ex cathedra statements? No. And the "magisterium" has not lent its "authority" to any such list. Can they list the "supreme pontiffs" that could speak ex cathedra? No. And the "magisterium" even refuses to tell us what is the right succession of "vicars of Christ", except when it is convenient. Yet Vatican II demands the same submission to the "supreme pontiff" even when he does not speak infallibly (Lumen Gentium). So, if they believed that everything their Pope taught was infallible, how would they teach differently? They wouldn't, not a jot. But they are not going to say we understood them because we call a spade a spade.
""Yes, you have understood me." Waiting for that with someone who insists if you understood them, you would agree with them-and the belittlement of the filioque as a linguistic problem, the sweeping under the rug of "different spiritualities (Greek, Coptic, Assyrian, etc.)" of the cognitive dissonance of the Eastern sui juris Chalcedonian, non-Chalcedonian, Nestorian in the Vatican scheme of things, etc., shows that is what we are dealing with-that's just a fool's errand.
Whether we find plausible the Catholic claim that all of its dogmatic definitions are grounded in the apostolic revelation is a different question. That can only be addressed on a case by case basis; but before we can address those cases, we must first demonstrate that we have clearly understood what the Catholic Church actually teaches about dogma and its development.
Demonstrate to whom?
Many of us clearly understood what the Vatican teaches about dogma and its development, because we were taught it by the Vatican, which is why we are Orthodox. It is that reason why we can't get them to admit that their CCC is an accurate authority of its teaching: it would pin them down and give them something we can hold them to.